the voters are going to decide whether or not the person going to washington is actually going to fight for them and actually has a fan to address the most serious issue today which is facing our country, and that is jobs in the economy. congressman murphy doesn't have a plan. yes not put a plan fourth to address these issues. you can look online and see exactly what i plan to do. they now have a track record of creating jobs and adding to the economy and they know i'm going to take that skill set to washington in a congress where we have so few business people who come from the private sector. blacks why can't the press come along and monitor this -- >> why can't the press, along and monitor this question are >> the press does come along. >> this campaign is about the people of the state of connecticut.

i ran into a guy just a couple of weeks ago, and out of work painter and he wants to know the differences between linda and i between how we're going to put him back on the job. they're big differences. when the's plan is focused on giving herself a $7 million tax cut and hoping that trickles down to people who need help. my plan is focused on investing in the people of this state and funding our schools and building roads and bridges and we recognize the strength of our nation is the people who desperately want to good work. linda does have a plan under website but as we have recently learned, a good part of that is just listed word for word, paragraph by paragraph from white -- from right-wing republican sites in washington. it is not a plan for connecticut. it essentially parrots a bunch of talking points that have not worked for this country. >> why the lack of access as far as where the two of you are day in, day out. >> i don't think there is any comparison in terms of access. linda has refused to meet with editorial boards and i've been

very willing to do so. i cannot count the number of press ability -- press availability as i have done. linda mcmahon does not want this campaign to be about issues. because of that is, she loses. whether its tax policy, support for education or women's health care, she cannot win because her economic plan is rooted in republican national talking points. my plan is rooted in the people of this state. >> i'm going to take time to respond to the very serious charge congressman murphy has leveled against me. shame on you. yet just accused me of plagiarizing my plan. it is beneath a congressman who

is sitting today or anyone who is running for the united states senate. you know very well by plan is my own. i have sought the expert opinions of those outside to get the brightest and the best and every word of that plan has been cited either in the online plan or in print. when you got into this race as the democrats at the thought -- as a democrat and you thought is going to be a coronation and now you are in a serious race with a serious woman. >> we're going to move on to the next question. >> in this tide of rising national debt, i was wondering about congressional earmarked. do you support elimination of them? here is one -- $1.9 million for a water taxi to pleasure beach in bridgeport.

>> first call me respond to this last allegation. there is no doubt we'll look at her jobs plan, there are entire paragraphs and sentences lifted from the house republican website, from the cato institute. i don't know what you call it, but all i am saying is this is not a plan rooted in what best for the state of connecticut. this is a plan written by people in washington. when that mcmahon's idea that by simply giving a bunch of tax cuts to the wealthy is going to benefit the rest of us is a really attractive idea to right-wing republicans in washington but it just doesn't work. it has never worked. let's talk about the differences and the fact that my plan continues to be regarded with best for connecticut. linda mcmahon's plan is rooted in paragraph says sentences written by other people. knottier question about fiscal responsibility -- now to your question about fiscal responsibility. we need to take a very different way of looking at how the

federal government spends money. i support a moratorium on your marks because it had gotten out of control before it to congress. but that's the beginning slice of a much bigger question about how we bring down the size of the federal government. i have called for a 1% reduction in overall discretionary spending. i have called for a balanced approach on deficit reduction requiring the wealthy to pay more and more cutting in the federal government. >> you have 90 seconds. >> again, shame on you. you thought this campaign is going to be a coronation because you're a democrat and now you are in a serious race with a serious woman and you are desperate. therefore you raise these

issues. my plan sites every word that i used from the brightest in the best to but my plan together. you would be better served to be putting a plan together. you need to be honest with the people of connecticut. you need to be honest about your special interest loans. to be honest about your attendance in washington. shame on you for taking this direction with this campaign. it is beneath you. and the people of connecticut deserve better. in my plan, i have referenced a tax cut for the middle class. my plan, if you take a look at it, absolutely keeps taxes the same across the board accept we're going to cut taxes for the middle class. my plan is the only one that has an actual middle-class tax cut. congressman murphy has voted to raise taxes on the middle class over two times already. his actions speak louder than his words. take a look at my plan -- it will cut taxes for the middle- class and we will cut taxes for businesses. however, when we cut taxes for

businesses, we will eliminate ear marks and loopholes and special subsidies. >> you have 30 seconds to rebut. >> here is what the director of connecticut's's said mayor for economic analysis of this about her plan. it is a recipe to balloon the federal deficit at a phenomenal rate. it looks like her items were picked off of a menu of politically attractive items. they were, because they were like -- or picked off a list of items with it from someone else outside the state and you should be honest about the fact that these are not original ideas. these are ideas that have been tried and failed over and over again. -- >> mr. murphy -- >> it has not worked for this economy and it will not work for the future. >> we will have closing arguments at the end of the statement. we would invite you if you could to please keep to the questions.

our next question is for mrs. mcmahon. >> let's talk about ways to improve social security. should payroll taxes be raised or should more income be applied to the payroll tax rate to improve social security? bill >> let me address again that congressman murphy has not been honest about my position on social security. let me be clear. i will support no budget that will reduce our benefits for social security or medicare. >> the question is about increasing payroll taxes to support social security in the future. >> i'm going to get to your answer. i believe we're going to have to reform social security and medicare in order that it will continue to be available for

generations to come. however, i believe we have to sit in a bipartisan way in congress the issues on the table and address those things that are going to be put into place to save and preserve social security and medicare for the future. we will do that in a bipartisan way. we will have scored and see with the financial impact of that are. we all agree it cannot sustain itself the way it is bidding, however, we also know we have to work together to make sure we can devise a plan that is going to work. >> are you interested in raising the payroll tax to support social security? >> i'm going to sit in a bipartisan commission and congress to work with all members to put the issues on the table which we need to address to prolong social security and medicare. >> mr. murphy, you have 90 seconds. >> that was one minute and 30 seconds of i'm not going to tell

you what i'm going to do if you elect me. that's what this whole campaign has been about. not being straight with the people of connecticut when she looks you in the eye on what she's not going to do it comes to social security. i would look at increasing the payroll tax, the amount of income if we need to increase the amount of money coming into social security to preserve it for future generations. but let's talk about what linda mcmahon has said. i want to put words in your mouth, so let's take the exact quote -- when your before a tea party group that didn't think anyone was listening, this what you said -- "and i do believe there are ways to look at, what we're trying to do when we put social security in place. in other words, i believe in sunset provisions when we pass this kind of legislation so you can take a look at a 10 or 15 years down the road." this was her 47% moment, when

she told this state she would support the sun setting of social security only when she didn't think we were watching. that would be a disaster for the people of this state, the thousands of connecticut senior to rely on that paycheck coming into shall security month after month. we can be looking at something, which is a nice way of saying and the social security. >> you have 30 seconds to rabat. >> there you go again not being honest. the rest of that quote, if you read that, it would confirm what i said at the beginning. i will support no budget, unlike you, who has already voted to take out $716 billion out of medicare. i will vote for no budget that will reduce the benefits are seniors are currently getting. >> these are your words. >> thank you very much. >> you have both describe

yourself as pro-choice and strong supporters of women's reproductive health services. let's talk some specifics. would you oppose a supreme court candidate known to favor of overturning roe vs. wade? as far as reproductive health services, which you maintain the nixon era planning program, title 10, which provides reproductive health care through planned parenthood and other private providers? >> i would. i would oppose supreme court justices who are going to use their position to strike down roe vs. wade and i would maintain and fight for this country's commitment to family planning. i'm here with my wife today and the issue of standing up for women's reproductive health is not just a political issue for us, it's a personal issue. my wife was the board chair for connecticut may wall and went to the legislature to fight to defeat one of the leading anti- choice legislators there.

linda's history is a very different. she has said on record that she would support something called a blunt amendment which is a right-wing republican proposal that would allow any employer in this country to deny their employees, their female employes, coverage for contraceptive, not just religious employers, religious and non-religious employers. it is unconscionable that a connecticut senator would go to washington to stand up for that kind of right wing proposal that could end of the nine contraceptive coverage to millions of women across this country and maybe even more importantly, i will make this commitment -- i will never support a leader in my party in the u.s. senate who would work to overturn roe vs. wade. if when that mcmahon is elected to the senate, no matter what the issue is, she will be empowering a senate majority leader and chairman of the judiciary committee will stop at nothing to erode women's health care. that's a big issue in this campaign. >> it is a myth to think that would be against women's health issues.

i am a woman. clearly, i'm going to continue to support access to contraception, mammograms, pap smears, all of them as i did as the ceo of a company that provided all those health benefits to its employees. i absolutely will not do anything that would impact women's health care issues. relative to a supreme court justice, i would hope there would not be a litmus test for president romney when he is supporting -- when he is so -- when he is presenting candidates for the supreme court. supreme court justices decide many issues. while i might not agree on each and everyone, i would want to bet that supreme court justice and judge the best justice for all their beliefs and all of their rulings said it would rule in accordance with the constitution.

the blunt amendment overreached. it was not about contraception. it was about the of reach of government and the separation of church and state. i will always support the separation of church and state and the overreach of government. part of what's wrong in washington is our government is too big. keeps reaching into our lives. i clearly support women's health issues but i don't support government overreach. >> here in connecticut, we have a lot on the books that says an employer has to cover basic preventive health care, which includes coverage for contraception. the blunt amendment would take direct aim at states like connecticut who have stood up for women's health care. it is frankly insulting for linda mcmahon to save you should only look at her gender, not what she stands for. she cannot run away from the fact she would vote for the blunt amendment, which would and coverage for birth control for thousands of connecticut and

millions of women in this country. >> the next question is for mrs. mcmahon. >> in connecticut, we have 9.1% unemployment. gas prices are rising well above $4. home values are down. how does this recession affected you? >> this recession has impacted so many people in connecticut. 171,000 people woke up this morning without a job. the reason i've turned my focus so strongly about creating jobs and putting people back to work in this campaign is because that's the primary issue of this campaign. anytime anyone is impacted by higher gas prices, higher food prices, just the cost of everyday living, it is squeezing our middleclass. that is why my jobs plan and my tax provision start with a

reduction of taxes to the middle-class, because those are the ones we need to give a lift, to have a tax cut for our job creators so are small businesses can continue to create jobs and we can start to turn this economy around and put people back in the state back to work. that's what will solve the issues. if we put more people back to work, they have more money in their pockets, they pay more taxes, they buy more goods and services. if they buy more goods and services, we create more goods and services. we bring down the cost of fuel and energy and gas prices. in our restaurants, they have to pay more for food than the deliveries. we have to bring down these costs and make our small businesses viable. >> limit tell you how this recession has affected me -- i have fought even harder for the people i represent. i committed my life to public service because i saw my neighbors out of work. i saw my family being denied health care.

when this recession hit, i turned up the volume on fighting for connecticut manufacturers. i founded the buy america caucus, dedicated to making sure our tax dollars stay in the united states. i stepped up the volume when it came to making sure the social safety net was there for the people of this state who were out of work, whether it's a unemployment benefits for health care for them and their kids. i fought even harder in the public arena for people who needed help. how did this recession affect linda mcmahon? in 2009, her company took $10 million in state tax credit designed to create jobs. at the same time, she laid off

10% of the workforce and made $46 million that year. she says that was the tough time and a bad recession. all she had to do to keep those 10% of workers on board was to just make $8 million less than a year and decide she could get by on $38 million that year rather than $46 million and as people could still be working. this recession has made me work harder but this recession doesn't seem to have affected the linda mcmahon. >> you say that you have worked harder for the people of connecticut. i think need to be honest about your attendance record in washington. you did not attend the committee hearings dealing with the recession, even when you served on the powerful financial services committee. you missed 80% of those meetings. i think a recession is a time when the war -- when you need to focus and understand as much as you can about what is going on and he needed to have been at those meetings. >> we have now reached about half a point of this debate. we not a question for mr. murphy. >> this question is about the income tax rate.

do you support raising the top income tax rate as proposed by president obama or reducing the top rate proposed by mitt romney? >> let me first respond to -- >> you will have time at the end. the question is about income tax rates for the highest incomes. >> i have a 97% of voting attendance rate in congress and i would be glad to talk about this issue going forward. let's talk about this issue. it is incredibly important. frankly, this is what people want to hear about it set of personal attacks. they want to hear about what we're going to do and what the differences between the two of us. my focus is on middle-class tax cuts. we should reauthorize the bush tax cuts for 98% of americans and expand them for families that need help paying for education or child care.

i do not think we should extend the bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% of americans. do you know why i don't think that? we tried it. we tried massive tax cuts for the wealthy during the bush administration and it didn't work. there is no empirical data that shows it works. this is about choices. the choice is this -- do you think $7 million is better spent in a new tax cut for linda mcmahon, or better spent giving additional cuts for child care in hartford on strike is a better off giving $7 million to linda mcmahon or is it better to use that to reduce class sizes in new britain? >> my tax plan calls for cutting taxes for the middle- class. it is the only real reduction in taxes for the middle-class. it also calls for keeping the other tax rates the same, so there is no increase or decrease in any other bracket.

it is simply about the middle class because that is where we need help. we need to reduce our taxes on business, but when i look at what our tax policy needs to be, we want to make sure while we are reducing taxes, we are also reducing spending. the reason tax cuts don't always work is if you don't decrease spending at the same time. my plan calls for a 1% reduction in spending. we're on space -- we are on pace to spend $3.8 trillion this year. we have overlapping and duplicative programs that cost over $200 billion a year. i'm not talking about cutting back services, i'm talking about cutting spending. if we were to put the tax cut emplace congressman murphy just

talked about, we would have enough money to run the federal government for 26 days. that's not going to get the job done. that does not cut down on the size of government. that does not improve the lot of the 170,000 people who woke up and are still without a job. we need a comprehensive jobs plan to get our economy back on track. i have one. congressman murphy does not. >> this is why we are in the problem we are in today. can't it's like linda mcmahon have promised the world -- we're going to have massive tax cuts and only cut spending by a little bit. arithmetic test to matter at some point, as bill clinton has said it bit convention. she would cut taxes by $4.1 trillion and cut spending by $360 billion. should cut taxes by 12 times the rate should cut spending. that's why the university of connecticut says it's a recipe for disaster on the deficit. >> your campaign has talked a great deal about middle-class tax cuts. not so much about poverty or

issues of economic inequality. connecticut is a very well the state but our state capital, a recent report noted half of all children live in poverty. bridgeport, new haven, waterbury are not that far behind. what is your campaign doing to address poverty issues? are there any party programs that are off-limits from budget cuts? -- any poverty programs off limits from budget cuts? >> i absolutely believe we have to have a safety net in place to take care of those people who can't take care of themselves. they did not opt to be in this situation. we are a benevolent nation that we want to take care of those who can't take care of themselves. however, i think the best way out of poverty is to have a job. i want to make sure we give people opportunities to have

jobs and work. when they can go to work, they're paying into the economy. they're helping the economy grow. congressman murphy talks about a tax plan that doesn't make mathematical sense. he is looking at america and the most visible way. he's not looking at an america that can grow and have economic growth because we have a growth plan in place that is going to make our economy better. those people who are suffering and you are in poverty, we need to continue to take care of them. as i drew the difference between governor romney and myself, when he talked about those in poverty, i said they haven't chosen to be there. i would not cut our food stamp programs now because we need to make sure those folks can continue to be taken care of. but let's get them a job and get them back to work so families can progress. >> again, this is just about

numbers. if you except this tax cut number, the only way to account for it is to have massive cut to these programs that do put people to work and grow jobs and take care people when they are out of work. you have to look at the work i have done. i've committed my life to standing up to the most vulnerable among us. some of the work i do on these issues may be don't get the big headlines. i wrote a piece of legislation, the support of housing investment act, named after a great advocate for anti-homeless this in connecticut that would triple the amount of housing units built for the most vulnerable among us. people have very grave mental illnesses and physical handicaps that can live on their own if they just have some supportive housing wrapped around them.

i brought millions of dollars back to the state to take homeless veterans of the streets. when i was sworn into office, there were about a thousand veterans living on the streets. we tripled the number of units we paid for across the state to bring the veterans of the woods, from under the bridges in stanford, and put them in housing again. you don't have to look of my campaign website to see if i care about the most vulnerable among us. you just have to look at the work i've done. i've dedicated my life to the people of the state and that would be a priority if i'm elected to the senate. >> you have 30 seconds to rabat. >> it is imperative we continue the social programs to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves, but i want to make sure when i'm in the senate that i'm pushing for of my jobs plan to get our people back to work and grow our economy because when we grow our economy,

everyone will benefit and will have a healthier and stronger nation. that's what i propose to do in washington. >> just to be clear, mr. murphy, the democrats say we don't have to cut programs like social security and medicare to tackle the national debt and republicans in general say we don't need to raise taxes. what do you think about that question mark what programs and how would you go about cutting and would you? >> i have called for a 1% cut in discretionary spending and i have been specific about where we do that. i oppose duplicative programs in defense costing the government $3 billion. i've opposed subsidies for agribusiness in the midwest that cost -- a cost this government over $8 billion a year that we don't need. i oppose giving away tax breaks to the oil industry and gas

industry to outsource. i have been able to stand up and oppose things we don't need the we need a combination of both additional revenue from those who have done very well by this economy and them some serious -- that is some serious spending cuts. the senator we're seeking to replace, we should elect someone in the senate is going to be willing to compromise. i am. linda mcmahon is not. she is one of these candidates who signed this pledge to grover norquist and a lobbying group in washington. in her debates, she said she agreed with mayor romney that if given a chance to cut spending by $10 and increase revenue by $1 that she would not take it. we don't need to send someone to washington who is going to feed this obstructionism and draw these ridiculously hard lines and the stand -- hard line in the sand. we a compromise solution that draws from both sides of the

ledger. >> as a ceo, i had to bring people to the table to get a deal done. that is how you negotiate an have compromise. he put issues on the table. everyone debates hard for what they want. but in the end, you walk away from the table with both sides getting some of what they want but not all of what they want. congressman murphy, you and i agree on a 1 percent cut in spending except i would not cut from defense. we have already had half a trillion dollars cut out of the defense budget. sequestration, which you are going to allow, will have another half a trillion dollars, the defense budget. the defense industry is very big in connecticut with our submarine base and all the small industries that do subcontract work. it's about $3 billion for the state of connecticut.

i'm not going to vote for any more cuts in defense spending because we need to have a strong defense and we need to preserve that portion of the economy here in the state of connecticut. i think there are other places to find that 1 percent and cut. you and i agree on duplicative programs. that's something we can take without cutting services. but my plan is a growth plan. when put in place, our economy will grow an arc revenue will increase because that's the way amera is. >> mr. murphy, you have 30 seconds to rabat. >> another in 90 seconds and no answers. not a single specific cut she would support and another example of fealty to supply- side, trickle-down economics that have not worked. trust me, they will eventually trickle down to everyone else. we don't need people who are going to washington without specific ideas where they would cut, without any answers to how they would achieve compromise. it's one thing to say i'm going

to have everyone sit down on the table, it's another to have to be able to sit down and do it. >> if obamacare is repealed, which plan be to insure the millions of americans who would be left without health insurance as a result? >> i am on record saying i would repeal and replace obamacare. there are parts of obamacare and i think are very good. the fact that a child today, that they can stay on their insurance until they are 26 is a good thing. i think we need to make sure we're not being penalized for pre-existing conditions. that's a very good thing in obamacare. however, i think obamacare was put into place to bring down the cost curve on health care and that is not what is happening. insurance premiums are going up, the cost of health care is going up.

we're going to add about 10 million more people to our health care world and we're not going to have that doctors or medical personnel to support that. i think we need a health-care revision. there's no question about that. but we need a health care revisions that's going to allow a marketplace to compete to bring down the cost. we need to be able to buy insurance across state lines. that means states have to get out of mandates for insurance. we need tort reforms to bring down the cost and we need accessibility for insurance. we need affordability for insurance. this current law is not going to do that. it will continue to drive up health-care costs and the cost of insurance premiums. >> you have 90 seconds. >> let me tell you why -- why i have dedicated my life to the

idea that everyone should have access to decent health care. there's a woman in connecticut who has worked hard all her life and so has her husband. her husband was switching jobs and in between those two jobs, during the week he was unemployed, their son was diagnosed with cancer. when it would to get insurance on her husband's new plan, they would not provide for because he had a pre-existing condition. one week or two weeks of a lifetime and they didn't have insurance. they lost everything. they lost their house, their savings, they became destitute simply because an illness happened at the wrong time. there is no repeal and replace plan. republicans in washington have voted to repeal is built 33 times that have never offered a replacement. we'd to protect this bill and perfected going forward. matters for small businesses -- perfect -- perfected going forward. it matters for small businesses and individuals who have been discriminated against because they've gone bankrupt, because someone in their family got ill

that could not get health care simply because they did not have the money to afford it. let's fix this bill and make it right. the methodology that you could just preserve the good parts what getting all -- getting rid of the parts you don't like cannot happen. that not what the republican party planned on doing. >> i would vote to repeal and replace because this was passed under the mark of government health care. i don't think that's the most efficient way to offer health care to our citizens. within this bill, there are 21 tax increases. congressman murphy, the referenced q would be cutting taxes for our small businesses under this plan, but it does not.

raises taxes. small businesses tell me this is their single largest concern. >> the next question is for mr. murphy. >> regardless what happens with the affordable care act, the government will remain deeply involved in government health care. i want to ask about a very sensitive part of health cost- containment. one third of u.s. health spending is to take care of americans in their last year of life. does that need to change and how this government tackle something like that without the debate quickly turning into talk about government death panels and health-care rationing? >> we need to make a commitment to be blunt public health care systems like medicare and medicaid that we are going -- public health care systems that we're going to take care of them.

u.s.s my commitment as a senator. but in order to do that, the have to have a medicare and medicaid program that works for those individuals and is not just designed to pad the bottom lines of insurance companies. this is where linda mcmahon and i differ. i believe we have to make changes to medicare to save the program. we have to make it more efficient and cost-effective. we have to get the waste out of it. we don't need to privatize it. linda mcmahon said she would entertain paul brian's plans to privatize medicare. that she would look at it. i will not. i will fight privatization of medicare with every breath i have because, to your question -- if medicare or medicaid becomes privatized and is being run by health-care insurance companies, then the decisions that are made will be what is in their best interest. what makes their bottom line better, not what protect

connecticut's seniors, not what connects those families trying to come to a very tough decision. >> should government have our role in and of life health-care and the spending that goes with that? >> the way to do this is to simply not empower health insurance bureaucrats. the way to do is to have families deep in consultation with physicians about the best course of action is either direction and their choice at the end of life. >> congressman murphy and i agree that the choice between late term care and and care ought to be between families and physicians. unfortunately, the affordable health care act takes that away and puts panels and between the patient and doctor. that is something i do not agree with in our health-care law. that's one of the reasons i oppose it. these are times we have to look at what is best for everyone to have the best kind of health

care they can have. i believe in preventive health care and let me just address one thing before -- let me digress for a second. i have never said i'm for privatizing social security or our medicare plans. that's clearly not my thing. congressman murphy knows that has to be honest about that. i will support continuing reform to social security and medicare simply prolong it for our generation. congressman murphy voted to take $716 billion of medicare to fund the affordable health care act. i don't think that is what we should do. we're there for than going to eventually did i those services to our seniors or hospitals or doctors who are going to take medicare patients. these are some of the pitfalls in the affordable health care act and these are the things i want to adjust to take care of so we do not penalize our seniors. >> president obama let me romney get away with the $700 billion law and i'm not going to let linda away with it. that money is taking out --

taken of the budget of health insurers who are being massively subsidized for medicare advantage. it is being taken out of the pockets of drug industries and drug companies who are making billions of care for seniors. if you are going to be serious about reducing the rate of growth of medicare, which you have to beat, then you have to be willing to say we're going to end the subsidies to insurance companies and drug companies who don't need our money when seniors to. >> in north carolina, your home state, gay marriage is banned and here in connecticut, gay marriages legal. which state got it right? >> i have lived in connecticut and i absolutely support america's law for same-sex marriage. i would not pretend to try to impose my will on others. i sing everyone should have the freedom to make that choice.

>> america does not have a law protecting same-sex marriage. in fact, it has the exact opposite. the united states has a law that doesn't allow people to marry based on their choice. it discriminates against individuals based on their sexual orientation. i think the fact that linda mcmahon spent only 20 seconds answering that question tell you she's not going to stand up to her party in washington when it comes to these issues that are being dominated by the social right in washington. there is a war being waged against gays and lesbians and i'm proud to stand on one side of that war. i'm proud to stand up to end the don't ask, don't tell policy, and not produce and for the idea that anyone in this country regardless of their sexual orientation should be treated the same. that's going to the fight i continue. but the shortness of that

answer suggests linda mcmahon is not going to stand up to the social right in her party which is trying to destroy the rights of gays and lesbians and also trying to destroy the white -- the rights of women in this country and take away their ability to choose for themselves what they want to do with the body and and coverage for family planning services and reproductive health care services. i'm going to fight that social right whether it signed a rights or women's rights every day i'm in the united states senate. when the mcmahon, as a republican, is simply going to be another vote to empower it. at the critical difference. >> mr. murphy, you voted with your party 90% of the time. i am independent thinker. i will differ from my party on particular issues. >> on that one? on the issue of civil rights? >> i will absolutely differ from my party. i am pro-choice candidate, i believe in equal rights for all.

i would have voted to repeal don't ask, don't tell. i don't think we should have discrimination in the military, the workplace or anywhere. >> our next question is to mr. murphy. >> knowing that voters form their opinions based on political ads, how can you justify airing ads that in some cases have been determined by fact checkers to be misleading, confusing, and downright inaccurate? >> the ads that you see on tv for me right now are me in my kitchen talking to voters directly about the differences between me and linda mcmahon on critical issues. i support a middle-class tax cut. when the mcmahon includes a tax cut for the very wealthy. when history is standing up for the people in the state, whether it's taking homeless veterans of the street and giving them housing or fighting for the most

vulnerable and the roof over their head because of a disability or mental illness. linda mcmahon has used her job a very different way, going to jobs -- going to washington to fight for lower protection for workers. those of the issues we should be talking about. it differences between us on the issues we stand for and our respective professional history. what i don't think voters what are these personal attacks that linda mcmahon is waging against me, my wife, and my family. it's not surprising she's doing it. she tried to do it two years ago with a very serious of personal ads. people in this state what the phrase to be focused on issues. to the extent i am talking about linda mcmahon in my ads, talking about the difference between her and i and the differences that matter to connecticut families.

>> you have 90 seconds. >> i think we ought to clearly be discussing the issues. that's why i have bad to talk about my six. plants. talks about tax cuts to the middle-class and reducing taxes for businesses and rolling back overburdensome regulations. when i've been up to ring are businesses, one business in plainfield, conn. said he was dealing with overregulation, he wanted to double the size of its facilities and put in two new pieces of equipment and hire new employees. he goes to his bank and under the current regulatory environment, as bank took a look at his business plan and said here is your problem -- you are asset rich and cash poor. he said i know that, if i had the cash it would not be here for a loan. he would have to over

collateralize a loan by 150% under the current regulatory environment. i want him to be able to grow his business. it's a classic example of regulation killing jobs. we need to make sure we have the proper amount of legislation but not overregulation. my commercials talk about reducing spending, and powering our work force for training for jobs available and developing a comprehensive energy policy to put our people back to work, energy independence to protect our environment. >> 30 seconds to rebut. >> you have been running some of the most deceitful attack at the state has ever seen. don't try to pretend that has not been what's happening in that race. when your campaign was asked why you don't start talking about the issues, your campaign manager said it would be a senseless exercise. that's right. for linda mcmahon talking at the issues of be a senseless

exercise. the only ads she can run are against me and my family. by pathe is different. -- my path is different. that's what in the final four weeks my campaign will be about. >> it's time now with our closing statements. we begin with mrs. mcmahon. i want -- >> i want to thank you once again. voters in connecticut will have a clear choice in november. a clear choice between a job creator has a plan to create millions of jobs and someone has never created job and does not plan to do that. someone who will raise taxes on the middle class, has voted to do that already, and someone who is going to reduce taxes, a class. someone who desperately wants to put our folks back to work, someone who wants to give an honest representation to the people of connecticut. i think congressman murphy does

need to be honest. he needs to be honest about his special interest and special interest loans. i don't have that opportunity to have special interest loans and i would not take special interest money because i cannot be bought. congressman murphy needs to come clean. i would be honored to serve as your united states senator and ask for your vote on november 6. >> thank you to panelists and our student -- a studio audience. i may not be worth millions like linda mcmahon, but that's because i have dedicated my life to fighting for people in the state. she's going to use her wealth to spend the last few weeks engage in very personal attacks me -- personal attacks against me and my life. here's my message to the people of connecticut -- don't let her do it. make this race be about you. make about the senior citizen who can't have their next senator play games with the next

paycheck. make it be about the out of work factory worker who wants a senator who will fight for in sourcing, not outsourcing. make it be about the kid in new britain who can't learn with 30 kids of her class. make this race be about you and set aside the personal tax and lies you see on tv at focus this race on which one of the two of us is going to put you back to work at supportable class. thank you very much. >> before we say goodbye, we have a yes or no question -- incumbent senators often avoid debates. will you commit right now to debating your opponent in 2018 bashar >> sure i will. >> absolutely. >> we want to thank our candidates tonight. thank you very much for watching. three more debates in this campaign season. have a great sunday. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> c-span is bringing you live debate coverage around the country between now and december 6. you can follow house, senate,

and governor races live on the c-span television networks and c-span radio. join us tonight for two more debate alive at 8:00 eastern. it is the debate for jim webb a's seat. tim kaine faces the george allen. this is live at 9:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> sees bank is a grt inside look into what is happening in washington -- c-span is a great look inside into what is happening in washington. it is different than regular media. it is very objective. it shows a lot of what is a real and what is going on. >> i watched hearings on c-span.

when the senate and house votes on the bills we watch it in the office. also when the supreme court has hearings we watched different decisions and opinions on c- span. >> she watches c-span on direct tv. c-span, created by mayor is cable companies since 1979 and brought you as the public service by your television provider. >> now the findings of a new public opinion poll on americans' attitudes toward arabs and muslims. the poll was conducted following recent violence protests in the arab world in response to a film denigrating is long. the caribbean news channel is a -- the arab news channel is part of this event hosted at the brookings institution. quite good morning. thank you for coming out on a

somewhat dreary fall morning. for an event that is more easily time today than when it was planned. gov. mitt romney is giving a major foreign-policy address later today just to the south of us addressing many of the middle east policy questions that we will be discussing over the course of the day. i hope we will be able to take a look at what the public opinion data may reveal about the potential popularity of the position of governor romney is putting forth. let me start by saying the arab awakening in many ways cease to put forward a coherent narrative to international observers, particularly to the

american public. in some ways, very quickly. the first few months of peaceful protesters facing off against the police forces of the brutal dictatorships gave way to win those dictators did in fact embark on a violent response. the much more mixed picture of a violent uprising in libya and elsewhere now what looks like an increasingly intrenched civil war emerging as a sectarian war in syria. finally, last month with the irruption of demonstrations in cairo and elsewhere not only in the middle east but across the muslim world in protest of this now infamous youtube video. the american public began to see a very confusing portrait of

the changes that are taking place in the arab world and what they mean. are non-residents senior fellow and a professor at the university of maryland kictogetr with their policies, and i would like to recognize the, and decided they wanted after the embassy a tax to dig in to where the american public is, how they are struggling to deal with the effects of the middle east. he will be providing us with an overview of the results of their work. and you pulled -- a new poll that was conducted a week and a half ago. extremely fresh public opinion data. we are going to take that data

analysis and add to it some contextual analysis from two very seasoned observers, william here at the brookings institute, a seasoned observer of american politics and also a thoughtful scholars on issues of religion and culture and politics. and the washington bureau chief, a seasoned observer of our politics. with these two gentlemen at our assistance today, we will take a broader look at how the arab world is looking at the united states in the u.s. public is looking at the arab world as the arab awakening continues to create a very uncertain and

fast-changing environment. i am grateful to all of you for coming. i look forward to our discussions. i like to invite him up to the podium to present the poll. >> thank you. it is always good to be here. i am going to present not the whole thing but some of the findings we can get on with. i want to give you a little bit of a picture about this particular poll. it was conducted by a number of networks that is designed to be a national representative of an international panel. the methodologies described in the information that will be put out is also available online. i want to say it is my pleasure and honor to partner this program, a program for

international policy attitudes, particularly my colleague. he has a recent book published about feeling betrayed about muslim attitudes. is is an excellent book that i recommend. also the fact that we did this. we did not get the results until wednesday. i am grateful for the steps of the staff. they put a lot into it to get it out very quickly and put a lot of time into it. the idea was obviously to measure it in a timely fashion to see how the american public is reacting to these demonstrations. in egypt, whether it has some consequences, and look at these results and compare them. we have done a number of polls related to this including the

spring of 2012. we found one in august 2011. there's also a chicago council in june 2012. we have a little bit of comparison. one of the things we read interested in finding out is how the public is internalizing what appeared to be slipping demonstrations initially. it look like they have support and they were very violent. a lot of commentary was "those people." we once to know what the american public sees as "thosepeopol -- those people." they see the attacks to be supported by the majority of arabs and muslims are the minorities? thinking about that for each country, would you say the

violent attacks only supported by extremist minorities or the majority of the population? you can see a large majority, 63% on egypt and 31 term in libya believe they were only supported by extremists minorities. that is going to be interesting. it is hard to know how the public is internalizing these events. it looks like they're playing it primarily on extremas minorities. on the other hand, we ask them about their impression what did the governments of egypt and libya tried to protect the diplomats, the majority say they did not. a large number in libya, 53% in egypt is a little more divided. that is pretty much the perception.

they criticize these acts to criticize the attacks. the question is, what is the public seeing when they are reviewing the reports? more people say yes identical in egypt and libya appeared 47 say yes they criticized the attack. the margin of area plus or minus 4.6%. is it your impression the government has tried to find and arrest? the majority say they did not. and the one hand of they think their only supported by the minority is that they think the government is not doing enough. one of the issues is egypt. this has been something that was put on hold the route these attacks.

it shifted its views to egypt. we presented them with four statements to see which one they support more. two in favor and two against. we started with the statement about the foreign aid to egypt. one statement is the u.s. should continue to provide aid to egypt because it helps the dips diverging a democracy as it goes to the transition. you can see 61% finds this unconvincing. only 22% of republicans and 29%

find it convincing. second argument in favor, the u.s. should continue to provide aid because it helps revive stability and it is a way to influence events. again, when you look at it overall, 57% find this argument unconvincing. there is more democrats than republicans, but overall it is the same trend. when you go into the opposite arguments, the u.s. should stop giving aid to egypt because it has been slow to criticize and had failed to confront those who would attack an embassy in cairo, you can find 64% finding this convincing. the maturities, democrats, republicans, and independencts, find this convincing.

given the difficult economic times the u.s. is going to, it is unwise for the u.s. to give large amounts of aid to egypt. we tested that, and you can see 74% find this argument convincing. while it is true that more republicans support it, it is pretty much supported across the board. in the end, after we go through these scenarios, then we asked, do you think the u.s. foreign aid to egypt should be increased, kept the same level, a decrease, or stopped altogether? you can see it as a mixed picture, because what you find here is 42% say it should be decreased. only 29% stake it should be stopped altogether. you can see there is a divide

across partisan lines, but that middle category is still very strong, where people are prepared to stop aid altogether. i want to compare that with a poll done for the council -- the chicago council for global affairs in june 2012, and you can see there is a shift. in june you had 40% state aid should be kept at the same level, 29% say it should be decreased. more people say it should be kept the same, and there has been a shift. what about the views of libya and egypt as countries? what is your overall opinion of each of the following countries?

this is a typical question we have asked in a number of countries over time, so we have a way to compare. we put turkey in there as a way of comparing to see whether there is a shift with turkey. you can see that views of libya are overwhelmingly negative. we do not have a comparison for libya. we have not asked questions in the past about libya. my suspicion that it is what it is. in the case of egypt, it is divided, but more people are unfavorable, but over time there has been something of a shift. for example, right after the revolution in april 2011, we did what i call, in light of that terror square metaphor, where

americans were taken the issue, 60% said they had favorable views it of these appeared that had declined by august of 2011, which 40%. there is not much of a shift since 2011. it is roughly the same, especially if you take the margin of error into account. it is not the chair -- appear that this particular episode is responsible for the use of egypt. america's role in the middle east. in light of recent events and thinking about broad u.s. interests, do you think the u.s. should increase its diplomatic involvement cannot maintain its current level of diplomatic involvement, or decrease it? you have 1/3 of american public wants to see it decrease, but --

over the past couple years we have been asking questions to see if the american public watching these events actually tization, so weat positio were interested in seeing events of the past few weeks shifted back. meaning they still support a country becoming more democratic even if the country is going to become more opposed to u.s. policies. surprisingly, it is a surprise to me, you have 50% of the american public say yes. this support of democracy appears to be strong even under

circumstances where it could lead to outcomes opposed to the u.s. more people support that notion. do you think the popular uprising in the arab world are more about ordinary people seeking freedom, more about the islamist groups seeking power, or both equal? we asked that because the debate has always been in this country about the nature of the arab spring, and we asked that from the first -- the first poll we did in april 2011, and you can see from here that in april 201145% say it was more about ordinary people seeking democracy. only 15 percent side set it was mostly about islamist groups seeking power, and 37% said both

equally. by august 2011, that had declined, where you can see more people say it is ordinary people than about islamist groups. now you can see a big shift. i have to say a little bit of a cautionary note here. we have to use the same exact language referring to the arab uprising instead of the arab spring in order to get a trend line. we have to repeat the question exactly the same way be asked in prior years. my sense, whether we should change the wording to our of spring, part of the problem and this poll we're talking about other uprisings, demonstrations caught in the prior two weeks, and some people may confuse the terms of pricing with the arabs bring broadly. i would not overly interpret

this one. there is no question there is a decline with this particular finding. for the reasons i mentioned, this has to be taken with a note of caution. use of arabs and muslims. we started asking about how the american public sees the arab people, the moslem people, in particularly in light of the uprising. that me start with a question about the clash of civilizations. whether the tensions between islam and the west, whether they think a a rise or from differences of religion and culture or from a conflict about political power and interest. we had -- we have asked this before, by and large it looks like it is pretty consistent. more people think this is about a conflict about political power

and interests than differences of religion and culture, while there is a decline from august 2011 to october 2012, in between there was the bbc poll in june 2006 where the numbers were the same. this does not appear to be much affected by recent events, actually. maybe there is a trend to be seen, but it does not seem to be affected much. if you look at the division of republicans and democrats on this, democrats are more likely to say this is mostly a conflict about political power and interests than republicans. republicans are more inclined to say it is about differences of religion and culture. a view of the arab people generally, you can see again, there is a slight trend of

declining favorable views of arabs from april 2011 when it was 56% to 49%, but when you take the margin of error into account, there is not really a huge shift here views of arabs abruptly. they're still slightly more favorable than unfavorable, and that seems to be the case with reference to the muslim people. we have 48% favorable, 48% unfavorable. in comparison to 2011, not a big shift. we asked t. bibby 0 policy questions -- we asked two policy questions. one question we asked in the polls we have done is whether they believed that israeli

strike on iran would delay iran's nuclear plan? what we found is there's hardly any change at all from march 2012. is almost identical results. what is noteworthy is the most people do not believe it will delay, that it will delay iran pus nuclear program by more than five years. where people think it accelerate their program than delay it by more than five years, 22% to 15%. what is an effect of a and it is really price on -- attack on the price of will put 86 said it would drastically increase. what would be the outcome on

u.s. involvement in the war? you can see 70% think that iran would attack u.s. bases and the u. s would get involved in the war. huge numbers. what if israel were to attack iran? do you think the u.s.' military position would be better worse, or about the same 55% say worse, 32% say this and, and 8% stake better. bottom line, do you think the u.s. should discourage israel from attacking around's neutral -- nuclear program, or encourage israel to attack iran? i have to say we had these three scenarios separately measured to go through them before we gave them these choices. for speed, i will not go through

that. the bottom line is that there is some change from march 2012, but not all locked. you have 53% saying the u.s. should take a neutral stand. you can see it wrapup -- across republicans and democrats, that category holds for democrats, republicans, and independents alike. final question before we set for the conversation is on the syrian complex. we asked -- i will summarize. we asked four questions separately, which is whether they support each one of these things -- increasing sanctions on syria, enforcing a no-fly zone over syria, sending arms and supplies to anti-government

troops, bombing syrian air defense or sending troops into syria. we asked them about each one of them. let me give you a summary. you can see 60% support increasing diplomatic sanctions, but what is interesting is 59% support a no-fly zone over syria. this is interesting because we can have a conversation about what that means, which the public thinks, because you can see from the three categories below that is only 22% supporting harming the syrian rebels. i should say on that one, there was a poll that was done also in june asking the same questions. by and large, the results of this poll were pretty much the same on all of these come up with the exception that in between there was also a cnn poll in august which showed a more divided american public on

the issue of arming the rebels. in some sense that could be changed from august. you could see only 22% support arming the rebels, 21% support bombing syrian air defenses, and 13% support sending troops into syria. there seems to be a contradiction of sorts between the opposition to bombing syrian air defenses and enforcing a no- fly zone. it is worth discussing. thank you very much. [applause] >> while everyone is getting settled, that we thank you,

shibley, for a swift overview of what are truly fascinating results. there is one fact that was in the fires that was handed out, quite interesting on the syrian conflict, that support for a no- fly zone, unlike a lot of the other options, varies quite strongly between republicans and democrats on the one hand, who by and large favor a no-fly zone, and independents who by and large do not support u.s. enforcement of a no-fly zone. it is an interesting divide between partisans and the independents and discussion at the moment in this campaign when both candidates are focused squarely on grabbing the independents. candidates are struggling to put forward a vision for the united

states in the world that is active, engaged, and both of them are struggling with the question of how to respond to this worsening crisis in syria. with that as a bit of background, let me start with you, fighting about independents is notable, and also notable in this poll that the public continues to be skeptical about foreign aid in general and about aid as a way of advancing american interests. given this sort of reticence, given the way the poll privies -- reveals the war awareness of the american public, how can romney or obama persuade the u.s. public that they need to support aid vision of leadership? what does this poll tell us about how americans are struggling with the balance between leadership, both unilateralism, intervention,

non-intervention, as they continue to feel priorities are here at home? >> is the right question because i think struggling with ambivalence, tension, contradiction is the heart of the matter, and let me try to unpack that. i will offer a broad generalization about the state of american public opinions on these questions, and then i will and with some -- end with some brief comments. let me make a technical holding know, that this is a survey of adults, not a survey of registered voters, that alone white -- likely voters. there are some differences as you impose increasingly demanding screens on adults, and these results will probably pick up more young people, more

people who are more weekly connected to the political system, and in this election year, i think that difference between adults and voters may be meaningful. ok, now on to the main event. first of all, how would i characterize the overall public reaction to the arab spring and its aftermath as revealed in this survey? i would say that people turned out to be reasonably well informed of the basics, some might say surprisingly well informed. their response overall, moderate, nuanced, influenced by domestic influent -- economic conviconditions. there is a palpable wariness with the cost of engagement in the middle east, but not to the extent of wanting to disengage altogether. nonetheless, from this survey

and from other surveys, i think one can reach the conclusion that the theme that it is time for some nation-building here at home as more than a little resonance with the american people. secondly, and this also, i think, responds to tammy's question, americans are deeply ambivalent about these events, and let me characterize that ambivalence as simple as possible. americans simultaneously like democracy and they like to be liked. and the arab spring, at least in the short term, is forcing them to come to grips with the fact that there may be some tension or contradiction between those two primal american desires. the arabs spring is forcing them to choose at least in the short term, because it is overwhelmingly likely that democratic governments will

amplify the voice is that are skeptical about american foreign policy in the region, and perhaps skeptical about american culture and political arrangements. it will give voice to out books that clash with hours. example, free speech, authoritatively stated by egypt's new president mursi in his address at the united nations. there is in the face of this ambivalence a narrowed support for democratization, 50%-42%, and there is a response to cut a the difference on this subject that should be pointed out. the percentage of americans thinking the arabs spring is more about freedom and democracy that islamist groups has declined by 2/3 in the past 16 months. that is significant. generation number three, and

shibley hit it at this, but given my study, this survey shows signs of acute partisan polarization on the basics of american policy -- for policy. if american politics ever stopped at the borders back edge, it no longer does. let me give you a few examples from the survey. because of muslim intolerance, violent clashes with the west are inevitable, a position endorsed by 60% by republicans, 30% of democrats. the clash of civilizations as the prison in which to see events of this region, republicans, 66%, democrats, 36%. uprisings in the arab world, republicans, 55 percent among democrats, 30%. this extends to the way people see facts.

the egyptian government tried to protect americans, 54% of democrats say the egyptian government did do that. only 25% of republicans. the egyptian government criticized the attacks, 65% of democrats, but only 36% of republicans. i could go to the rest of the survey and illustrate these partisan fissures, so the proposition that everyone is entitled to as an opinion, but not his own facts, how 20th century that proposition seems. [laughter] fourth generalization, which starts to broaden out, i read this as revealing a shaky foundation at best for a strong relationship between united states on the one hand and the arab and muslim world on the other. american public opinion is divided down the middle on both

arabs and muslims, ara. as shibley pointed out, attitudes towards nations like egypt and libya that have moved in a democratized direction in the past 16 months, negative and have become more so during that time period. 42% of americans now endorse the clash of civilizations pugh, a minority, but up from 26% a year ago. these trends its seems to me are not positive from the standpoint of a strong relationship. i hope i am wrong, but these numbers are suggestive of some adverse trends. finally, as i promised, syria. this is a strong majority

supporting a no-fly zone, and i suspect that the fact that the libyan no-fly zone turned out to be almost cost-free american standpoint is influencing that judgment. by contrast i have to say i found this an equally surprising finding, 22% support arming the opposition. when might speculate that is a ballot result, that it reflects historical experience of a blow-back in afghanistan, where as the reaction to the amped soviet forces were turned on us. overall, and i will end here because it seems to me that this is where today's debate is going, there would seem to be a public critic at -- predicate

for a stronger american stance regarding the syrian conflict than the obama of administration has adopted. governor romney's speech today is almost certain to raise this point. whether it will raise it in a way that captures public and managing agent and strikes them as sensible remains to be seen, but i would say that this survey and governor romney's speech, plus, the elements of the ground, they be entering what i would personally regard as an overdue public debate about what the united states ought to be doing regarding the syrian conflict. >> thank you so much. let me turn to hisham, and bill talked about the polarization of american public opinion on for some -- on foreign policy. not surprising where foreign policy has begun to play a

significant role in both the campaigns, but what we see in the arab world is with the emergence of more democratic politics, polarization as well. around a number of issues that relate to the relationship, interaction between these arab states in transition and united states and the west more broadly. the poor results that americans seem to understand this is about islamists struggle power it could be explained by media reporting, but also a creeping sense that the future of the arab world looks like an argument among islamists. indeed, i think that many commentators, yourself included, in the wake of the attacks on embassies, have made the point that this was to some extent an argument among islamists.

the arab states in transition to not have a clear model they are driving toward. it is not clear what they want to be. can you talk a little bit about what those dividing lines are in the arab world and how they relate to where bill ended up, a shaky foundation that exists here? what is -- what does the foundation look like in the transition stage for building a relationship with the u.s.? >> me say first, in the american view of the arabs -- let me say first, the american view of the arabs spring is more nuanced. it is still on the main negative. i cover a leadership that still sees the united states and fairly as the omniscient on the present power in the middle

east. since the arab states -- since world war ii, the stakes have been ruled by a collection of autocratic, repressive dictators, lack of freedom, only a few islands of freedom of expression, that explains in part the tendency to believe in all ulterior motives, conspiracy theories, and what not. the arab uprising has not changed that yet. there is also a legacy about conflicts between united states and some arab states, arab societies, and in the last few decades the united states has engaged, libya, iraq, military

confrontation. there is that legatcy. the deeper legacy which is the resentment that exists in the arab world because of the traditional american support for these autocratic regimes. just think of that second inauguration speech of george bush when he admitted for the first time, as president, and for the past 60 years, we the americans, both republicans and democrats, looked the other day when our arab friends were violating the basic rights of their own people and we did nothing in the name of a free flow of oil, the alliance against the soviet union, and stability. of course the american legacy of what most arabs see as the almost unconditional american

support for israel. we should keep this in mind when we discuss how arabs see the united states. those of us who have studied the modern history of the arab world would say until the 1950's and maybe 1967, mostly in 1967, there existed in the arab world and beyond a reservoir of goodwill toward the united states. i used to read glowing writings the united states, people who have emigrated from the arab world to the united states. everybody talked about the legacy of american education and american universities.

the american support of the people for self-determination following the first world war. it is not in the genes of arabs to be against americans. there are historic reasons for this. we're talking about a number of arab states going to transition. let me remind you as someone with a leftist background, when you grow up to change a little bit, the past description -- and you should have heard me say that before -- i would quote a great marxist from italy, he said the crisis consists in the finding that the old is dying and the new has not been born yet. a great variety of war but

sentence appears. -- a great variety of morbid symptoms appears. where are we going? there is a transition from in the post-mubarak in egypt, but where we are going, we really do not know. this is going to take years. the me quote other markets. -- let me quote another marxist. sometimes decades pass and nothing happens.

sometimes weeks pass and decades happened. this is an uprising, and it was not led by a very well established political party, an agent of revolution, an agent of change. it was not led by one meta- ideological narrative, although -- but it was begun by a non- islamist. they won the elections, but i do not care, they're now in charge. i am very critical of islamists. there is a spectrum of islamists, and most experts say i am not one of them.

the muslim brotherhood will come back with 25%, 30% at the most. we knew nothing about this. we had no idea about the pulse, this is the critic of the academics, but they deserve some poking once in awhile. unfortunately from where i come from politically, the nature of governments in egypt, indonesia, and libya -- in tunisia, in libya, the people i supported, reformers, progresses, secularists, are watching with frustration. they did a larger job of the

elections in egypt, because i remember in my youth in 1968, everybody was happy with the revolutions, movements in spain, paris, and think about the future and demonstrate, and that has changed. they demonstrated they did all these things, but did not do retail politics. they did not understand the politics is coalition. now islamists are at the helm. what happened recently after that video and reaction in egypt -- in benghazi it was an act of terror. this is not about religion. we are not engaged in theological disputations. from the crusades in the

colonial era, is about political power, economics, control. what happened is he essentially a stupid video produced by a bunch of the idiotic people in california, nobody knew about it, it was on the internet, but islamists translated it into arabic, and luke released it into a plethora of television stations in egypt. islamists can on this issue in competition with the mainstream islamists. the leader of that country, and muslim brother, mursi, used in

competition. you have two main groups using this issue as an excuse in their ongoing political fight. it is a political issue. from the date ayatollah issued the fatwa -- he needed that pretax trade same thing in pakistan, afghanistan. talk about the stupid tattoos against the prophet mohammad, or two years ago with a bigoted peace in florida who decided to , it is aboutns political power.

then the secretary of state is that to the agent is a fantastic religion. he is entering into the crazy universe of these radical jihad teist. i believe every religion has its own ayatollah. it is a political issue. we are entering into the crazy universe and we lose. this is not religious, we're not gauged in religious disputation. we're dealing with societies that have been brutalized and have been pulverized by their own people, and the arabs who still remember the glory days, watch the rest of the world today and a globalized world like the world is passing them by and leaving behind.

this is it. this is it. thank you. >> thank you. [applause] i am going to ask one brief question i hope you can all tackle briefly before we open it up to the audience for your questions. and i think you ended in a great place, hisham, coz these arguments are not about culture, religion, they are about politics and power. americans seem to recognize that. i would say that although americans like to be liked, based in to admit on this set of issues a degree of pragmatism. i've wanted to ask you, shibley, as one of the authors of the poll, do you think that is an accurate lesson to draw from the

data we see, how do you expect the next american president will be able to build on that, if so? we had an election in venezuela yesterday, and i woke up this morning thinking about latin america where the united states is not very popular and has not been for a long time, for many hishamsame reasons they shathat note. yet denies its -- yet the united states carries on its relationship with countries in latin america. knowing there are pragmatic reasons to change in the war, how will the -- what policies will the next president be able to put forward and get public support for? >> that is a great question, and i want to say one footnote to something bill said about

methodology, people who feel this survey -- it is a national representative survey. they have a scientific random selection of telephone numbers as well as addresses, and people who do not have internet connections, they provide them with the computer and a connection, and people who do not speak spanish, they provide them with span its translation. >> i was not questioning that. what i was making is there is a difference between pullolling adults and pulolling voters. >> that is the methodology question. it is interesting, the result you said -- i think he is right.

given what we have seen and what hisham said, a lot of americans have to be frustrated watching this reaction to take place, just the kind of outcry and demonstrations, and yet they appear to have a nuanced interpretation, and part of it -- and really almost along the lines that hisham suggested, this is being used as a political tool by people who are competing with each other. the public does have that interpretation. may i also add that if you look at the muslim public, hisham right that anti-american views are pervasive. is pretty consistent and has not changed much. there are differences and

attitudes on issues like this. one of the interesting things is that world public opinion -- a poll in 2009 among muslim countries tried to see if they support freedom of speech to people who criticize religion or think countries should pass laws against people who attack religion. there were major differences. the majority in egypt and pakistan wanted to see people punished for attacking religion. majorities in turkey and azerbaijani wanted to see people have the right to criticize religion. their differences across muslim societies. it is not the same thing. we have to keep that in mind. one final note, which has to do with interpreting attitude on .iryria

i am not sure i agree with bill on this purge of america is wanted by some this -- this urge of americans need to do something in syria. i am not sure what, but that is another story. it is hard to see all the carn age bloodshed and not want to do something. if you look at the american public, it is consistent, overwhelmingly opposed to direct military intervention, and the -- and if you look at the opposition to even army patrols, because entering a slippery slope, the resistance to being engaged in another war, you have to look at this no-fly

zone as something of an aberration because it is an interpretation. libya was almost cost-less. a lot of people have discomfort. it is very hard to watch and destruction on the scale we are watching and say i cannot do anything about it. that is there, the public is resisting a pact that would take america into war. that is pretty clear. >> romney is, as reported, arguing for greater intervention, he is facing an uphill climb? >> only 22% support arming the rebels, but the opposition among independents is even greater. but if you press it is very interesting to see how the public will react to it.

my own view is if you were to make an announcement and we to have a poll tomorrow, that number would increase, and it would not be a question of -- leadership does count for something. it sways opinion, a little bit, but not enough to make a difference for him, because it will be mostly his core supporters. >> hisham, is there room for a pragmatic engagement with the arab world? with that received a positive response? >> and a big believer in the american engagement in the arab and the muslim world. i believe there are certain things that the united states can only do, from certain military interventions or political support, technical

support. i'm always reminded by the fact that the europeans were so helpless by the mass killings of bosnians in the 1990's, which occurred on european soil. for the first time since the holocaust, people on european soil were being killed because of their ethnic -- it happened on european soil. only the americans could have intervened. i am a big believer -- >> indispensable nations? >> united states is an indispensable power. that is the reality. united states should continue to engage in the arab world, should invest in a long-term alliance with those people in the arab world and in the muslim world who share with the united states

certain values, who believe that it serves their own interests to have a good relationship with the west. they believe there is interest to be part of a globalized world, a big lead in their own interest to have good inter relationships with the united states. one of the things i like about this is the majority of americans believe that democracy in those countries are going through a transition. you have a more democratic system in turkey. they support even when the turks or these supported but supposed --mocratic governments prepar we acknowledge these countries are talking about countries in

transition. islamists are in charge. let's keep their feet to the fire. let's engage them and engage means you deal with them, cooperate with them, keep their feet to the fire, and countries pressure each other. united states imposed sanctions on other countries. .et's not kid ourselves trip in international relations as, love is not acquired. united states should serve its interests, but our people in the middle east who are supposed to be our natural allies. i would not hold my breath. but you engage them. a country like egypt, a key country, these people created democracy, created central government, they have huge problems. they have to face the fact that they are poor, they're

marginalizing themselves. egypt used to be the trend setter in the arab world, for 150 years. egypt cannot even influence events in gas that. egypt is not equipped to deal with turkey as a regional power. it's still lives in the shadow of its slump. egypt cannot compete with iran. egypt is a poor country, and egyptians should know we have common interests, but you have to follow certain rules. united states should not give one penny to any country unless there is reciprocity. i happen to believe -- in an ideal world, we should not give israel one penny and we should not give egypt one penny. that is not an ideal world. mursi waits for 30 hours for his

first reaction when an american embassy is storm, and the first reaction is on facebook, where he denounces the movie or the video. he ends by saying i asked my embassy in washington to pursue these people. he said this in passing pick as a state we are supposed to protect private and public property. there's no word of sorrow. there was no word of condemnation or culpability -- nothing. i was flabbergasted because the president of the united states, when he made this comment, did not say a word. daschle rash of the nine states

was appalling -- the initial reaction of the united states was appalling, too. people were demonstrating for something, that the people of united states have nothing to do, and we did not denounce the fact that the leadership in egypt did not say anything. it is a minority people. it is always a minority people. the you think the majority of the french people stormed the bastille? do you think the majority of the americans the british for independence? it is not the minority that does this. it is what the political class in a given country says about the minority, but the intellectuals and journalists say when these things happen.

i can deal with the mob. but who is in charge of the country? what happened to someone burst the -- salman rushdie -- he is one of the few people in the arab world is said the fatwa was crazy. >> a question on foreign aid to pick part of the thing we have to understand is the egyptian public does not want to see the aid, either. the american public and the egyptian public -- who are the people pushing for aide put it is primarily government agencies and bureaucracies. they have a lot of interests, and good ones. [indiscernbile] even in congress, they say how are we going to persuade people? people for the pentagon say we

need this aid because we need this relationship. it is not public on both sides pushing for the aid, it is agencies. it is self-interested, on the issue of mursi and what we should be doing, one is i agree the u.s. has to protect its interests. as mursi said, is as unacceptable, because this is a red light on the other hand, we cannot panic in an environment of that sort. you set out transitions are unpredictable and all kinds of -- i do not remember the term you used -- when you look at all of that, this is the time not to pull back. you'd need to engage. the outcome is not decided. there is a battle going on in

each of these countries, and if you do not weigh in diplomatically and militarily, if you need be, the outcome will not be to your liking. the worst thing to do, is to say it is anarchic, you pull back, and i think panic is the wrong strategy. >> those are endorsements for an approach. the challenges democratic society is what they can support that. his shawmut said that has nothing to do with it. -- hisham said that has nothing to do with it. >> time for questions is getting short, so let me be brisk. i will make three points. first of all, building on the centrality of egypt in this discussion, as a naive american,

one of the things i learned from your survey work in recent years is that egyptian public opinion is much closer to pakistani public a perrin -- public opinion than americans have understood. that is an important predicate going forward. i agree continued engagement is essential, but we have to be clear about what we are engaging here and now, and this is not a public that likes united states, the degree of antipathy in egypt to the united states and the pervasiveness of into it is something we have to take on board as one of the factors shaping our policy. and if i have misread your surveys, please correct me. i do not think i have. number wo, the pugnacious, i do not accept the distinction between politics and interests

on the one hand and culture, religion on the other. i think that is a false start of the discussion. what works for the united states and the -- that does not work for the united states or for the muslim world. i doi is not by the proposition that an egyptian public in a free and fair election gave a more than 75% of the vote to this family that you referred to. that is not a reflection of some minority manipulative public opinion. it is public opinion. there is an important religious component to that. one of the things that is important to that component is a concept of blasphemy that was pervasive in the western world five centuries ago. which is a matter of public

policy we have left behind. that is a religiously based conflict. we have to face up to it. this is not an argument for disengagement. for tried to fool ourselves into believing no one cares about that stuff, i do not believe that. about like to be wrong. i do not think i am. >> let me open it up. we have about 50 minutes. i certainly appreciate the engagement. i appreciate it if you keep your questions brief and to the point. and i did it by yourself before your ass. why do we start right here. >> how much influence did the competition impact opinion effect muslims as compared to the [inaudible]

>> a you directing that anyone in particular? >> i did not understand the bottom question. >> how will it affect voters' ta? >> how does it affect who will windy presidential election -- win the presidential election. >> one point is about the importance of issues. i happen to think that foreign policy is not much of an issue anyway. even though it haawhile the rect events have increased it, that it is not like of this late in the day and they will worsen the on that scale to have much of an impact. but we have not talked of how people read these issues --

se issues.he people do rank it in the top five but in an open question, not in terms of this. they tend to bring it in a little bit higher than democrats. maybe that is one thing that romney is doing. if there is an election, i would make two points. bill made a point earlier on how democrats and republicans are operating on two very different paradigms' about the relationship with the countries. you can see the public opinion poll. they do see it more of a class of civilization. it is pervasive. the find in almost every issue.

there is a philosophical difference. i do not know what mitt romney has in mind. we do not know what he is doing, but the people around him are many of the same people who were around bush before. i suspect we would expect something more along that line. >> what i am going to do is take several questions and then come back to the panel. let me start right behind you. then we will go across this way in the purple shirt. >> i m a university of california student. in regard to intervention in syria for u.s. policy should be, how do we account for lower of the fallout if

we decide to intervene, for example the alawite population? what'd you think will happen to them? do you think that can be foreseen if we decide to entertaiintervene? >> the 75% who voted for the islamic party not because there were islamic party, but in egypt for 17 years there were no political parties. they became more political. it is small. mohammad morrissey -- morsi was on a visit to the european

union. he said that i am against that. we did that except in cairo the demonstrations of private property and buildings. >are you going to enact a lot to stop the abuse of the free speech or religion? >> and question about the possibility of the norm established at the u.n. it gives to the point of this is a deeply seated issue. >> thank you for your presentation. my question goes to you. in a recent panel that happened over here, i think he said the

muslim brotherhood is pro- business in fiscal conservative. how does that play as to how they actually perceive the muslim brotherhood or morsi's party as being part of a unique element? there is politics. >> the kenyan the microphone right there. thank you. >> i am wondering how much being informed of fax responses. have you -- effects responses. have you been able to look at the difference between sophisticate analysis? when you provide more information, and a question like

that if you had said egypt allowing u.s. warships to go through the suez canal, when you ask a question that way does it end up affecting responses? >> we have four fascinating questions. >> let me just respond to a couple of them. i confess when the young man asked his question i had a response very much like tammy's. do we have a party like that in the united states tax apparently we do. states? apparently we do. perhaps they will make beautiful music together. if mr. romney becomes president.

let me respond to the question that was directly addressed to me. i think that question raised a very important point. you're absolutely right. for decades the muslim brotherhood was the only game in town and the muslim brotherhood was not exactly welcomed by the egyptian government. it was harassed, suppressed, in jail. it was there. it has much deeper roots in egyptian society band the groups of secularists, a liberal intellectuals, etc. it is entirely possible that

over time as the newly party comes face to face with the reality of governing a country that they will respond to that in various ways. if they do not master the very real and social economic problems, the egyptian public may shift its views over time. i am not saying that the current political figure configuration is letters carved into tablets of stone. not at all. at the same time, i think there is a lot of evidence to the effect that egyptian public opinion is deeply conservative

on a range of religious issues. this is not an accident. i do not expect that to change. to the extent there are aspects of western culture that rub up against deep-seated religious beliefs which i can respect even if i do not agree with them as a political matter, i think we will have an ongoing tension with that a set of beliefs. we believe in freedom of speech just as deeply as people throughout the muslim world believe believe in the idea of honoring the speech the central figure of islam.

i think it will be very difficult to bridge that divide whenever it becomes central. i wish i could come to a different conclusion. that is the fact of the matter. i do not think it is simply a consequence of the history of suppression of the muslim brotherhood. >> this would take forever. we have a civil war. we are going to see more and more communal clashes in syria unless the situation is contained somehow by foreign intervention. we would see a situation similar to 11 on a -- to lebanon. i would hasten to say they are not all with the regime.

there are politics in syria. i think from this part, you should hold this first, as the americans have been doing. we will not help you unless you represents all stripes of the society. i think this is the message that the united states should continue to repeal of the opposition. these are legitimate concerns. when we were there, and yet we have seen 500 of the christians leading. we can discuss it afterward. on the issue of morsi, when he went to italy to announce the

attacks, his reaction was appalling. he was exploiting it for his own political ends. if you read the facebook page of his it is appalling. these are not the views of the president of citified million people and the country that has been around for 70,000 years. they are not the leader of a supposedly great country. there is no expectation on this issue. on the issue of blasphemy, i am against any law against blasphemy. i do not like the fact that others have criminalize denying the holocaust. it should not be the case. in this country we criticize

them. you cannot have a law against that. it is free speech. people have the right to be stupid and say outrageous things. one of the reasons i became an american is because of what i call my secular bible. this is our constitution. take it or leave it. let me tell you another thing. you find the articles and books written against islam in the last 1400 years in europe, you end up with a middle sized

theatre. that cannot prevent is lobbying in the last few decades and generations. -- that did not prevent is long in the last few decades and generations. if they are going to be afraid, is this the reason creating a great culture? baghdad, damascus. you are powerful. you have enough confidence.

there is a great passage region etche.i he said -- he did not like to be some in christianity. he said i welcome this religion because it says yes to life. it created group culture. it says yes to life. it is not that we have to hide our women. it is not fit to be that link -- a robe should be that length.

i can tell you many bad things that the muslims said about religion. who cares? one final thing. they are conservative. there is another thing. if we look at these writings, he was horrified by materialism, week spiritualism. you are strong. let me say one thing many as

llamas do not like. when you look at osama bin laden, what do you see? decadence, a hedonism, materialism. there is business. we know that. there also views about the west in general. we should be honest about this. >> thank you. >> let me start with the easy one, the pathological one. there are in fact studies. we have done that before. it used to be in public opinion poll the attentive public opinion that the attention. the chicago council used to do these among the elite.

there are some differences. i happen to believe that it is more important to work on what i call the issue of public. i have done work with john early on to people who break in issue high on the priorities. their opinion matters more for policy. that is a separate issue. i want to end with two points. one is related to what bill said about this exchange. i agree with the bill by the way about identity manners and culture and opinion. \ keycorp is how they identify themselves. -- the core is how they identify themselves.

one reason for it is this incredible difference in identity. the cornerstone is simple to them. they are very egyptian and geographically situated. they have a history that defines them differently. let's look at this. there is no question that they are strong. they have a president and a parliament. maybe they will learn are something like that. maybe. -- or something like that. maybe. in each a particularly, between the parliamentary and presidential election, what

happened? in the presidential election the first round, 46% of the people voted and islamists have an easier time getting people to vote. in the runoff election against he barely beat, him. egypt is divided in ways even with religion in importance. it is not the most dominant thing in their lives. there's a lot much more going on. all this blasphemy saying i happen to be totally against any loss. i prefer what we have over europe in this issue. if you get down through this

slippery slope, there is no end to it. i was a student oof modern philosophy. he talked that -- taught that language is action. it matters and have to pay attention to consequences. i worry more about you interpret that. when you allow elected officials on any given moment to interpret that, it can be disastrous. be careful what you wish for. a month ago the legislature passed a resolution that is not binding thaton- seemed to be very innocent against anti-emetic language. asking universities in particular to not condone or use

public funding for anti- semitism. he would oppose that? this is what they had written down to interpret what it means. all the different things they put down, somebody like jimmy carter could not get invited. they say human rights activist and not be invited. that is a slippery slope and some of which all have to avoid. what we have a sacred. i certainly do not want to see new laws to limit what people say. >> amne, brother. -- amen brother. >> pleased to join me in giving a hand to all of our panelists. getting a join me i

hand to all of our panelists. going to this debate about blasphemy in restricting speech, there has been a very compelling response from fe the communities in new york putting galler ads to the saying to choose love. it is with that thought i leave you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> more from camp a 2012 tonight with a couple of live debate. in a half hour from now, the for jimcandidates faced off webb's seat. later we had west for a debate between the candidates for u.s. senate and montana.

>> the campaign 2012 campaign web site provides on demand coverage of all the presidential and vice- presidential debate. is the only place where you will see our live coverage of behind the scenes sights and sounds after the debate. it has each debate question available as a separate clip where you can search and watched by topic. read streaming tweets from reporters and other reactions from the debate have appeared 02 c-span.org/ -- debates. go to c-span.org/campaign2012. >> met ronnie made these

remarks of the virginia military institute. foreign-policy will be the focus of the third presidential debate. this is one half-hour. [applause] >> thank you, ladies and gentlemen. it is an honor for me to be here with all of you. and have the honor of introducing governor remit romney. the bad news is that i was here for amnesty of a parade. no such luck. we are raising up a tremendous new class of young men and women that will lead this military and nation going forward.

congressman goodlatte has been a tremendous supporter of the men and women in uniform. since its founding in 89, this institution has been incredibly dedicated to the cause of honor and service. vmi has produced some of the finest officers that the military has known during its nearly two centuries of service. i think it is fitting that governor romney has chosen virginia military institute, and you, the corps of cadets, as the audience to be able to discuss america's role in an increasingly dangerous and changing world. many of you no doubt will raise your hand and swear an oath to the constitution here upon graduation, and also be asked to

go into harm's way, and for that, on behalf of the people of virginia, i want to say thank you. my family is kind of typical of virginia. my dad is a world war ii vet, my daughter was a platoon leader in iraq. there are many families like us in virginia. we have 150,000 men and women on active duty in a virginia. 830,000 veterans in virginia, about the highest number per capita of any state. the, the pentagon, the great navy base in norfolk, the home of the coast guard station, many, many places where men and women in uniform proudly serve. it was the pentagon on a virginia's soil that was one of the places attacked on 9/11. i think that perhaps our roots going back to the first commander in chief, general and

president george washington, give us that unique sense of history when it comes to serving in the military. while most said the jobs in the economy and get and things of that nature, economic issues, are at the forefront of people's minds, some of the events of the past few weeks have put the issue of foreign policy front and center once again. no matter what the economy needs, america's role as the leader of the free world is always an issue of importance not only for americans, but around the world. there are many uncertainties, and you see them on the daily news. the arab spring has created a number of new leaders in many places, egypt, libya, other places. mitt romney will be the leader, i believe, who will help to forge new strategic alliances and create a very clear policy for how we are going to deal with the mideast, and be sure that we are always vigilant in

this ongoing war against al qaeda and terrorists. secondly, our strategic alliance with israel is always an important issue. governor romney has been unequivocal in his support for our friends in israel and upending their interests. thirdly, this ongoing issue of how to deal with the impending defense cuts brought about through sequestration are a critically important issue for our nation. $1 trillion in defense cuts over the next two years is simply not acceptable to be able to defend our country and provide you, the men and women who will be in the military, with the support and equipment and material that you need to defend our nation's interests. while president obama has been largely a bystander and not forceful in preventing defense

cuts, governor romney has been unequivocal that this policy must be reversed and more resources need to be applied to defense. i am delighted that governor romney has chosen at virginia military institute today to be able to deliver remarks on america's leadership role in the world and on foreign policy. he is a man of immense principle, immensely successful as a leader in the public and private sector. he was commander of the massachusetts national guard, and understands very well what the men and women in the national guard do to support the cause of freedom. please join me in welcoming a man who i believe was ready to be commander in chief of the united states military, the next president of the united states, governor mitt romney. [applause]

>> thank you. thank you. thank you so very much for that warm welcome, and i particularly appreciate the introduction by my good friend and tireless campaign companion, gov. bob mcdonnell. we have traveled to stick together time and time again, and he goes all over the country helping me. he is also showing in virginia what conservative leadership can do to build a stronger economy. thank you also to congressman goodlatte. in particular thanks to the general.

i appreciate his invitation to be here today at the virginia military institute. it is a privilege to be an institution like this that has done so much for the nation both in times of war and times of peace. for more than 107 years, vmi has done more than educate students. it has guided their transformation into citizens, warriors, and leaders. vmi graduates serve with honor in nation's defense, just as many are doing in afghanistan and other lands. i mourn with you the 15 brave souls who have been lost. i join with you and praying for the many vmi graduates who are right now serving in harm's way. may god bless all who serve and all who have served. of all the vmi graduates, and

none is more distinguished, perhaps, then general george marshall, the chief of staff of the army became secretary of state, secretary of defense, helped to vanquish fascism and plant it europe's rescue from despair. general marshall once said, "the only way human beings can win a war is to prevent it." those words were true in his time, and they are true in our time. last month, our nation was attacked again. a u.s. ambassador and three fellow americans are dead, murdered in benghazi, libya. among the dead or three veterans, all on a mission of peace and friendship to a nation that clearly longs for both. president obama has said that ambassador chris stevens and his colleagues represented the best of america, and he is right.

we all mourn their loss. the attacks against us in libya were not an isolated incident. they were accompanied by anti- american riots in nearly two dozen other countries, most in the middle east, but also in africa and asia. our embassies have been attacked, our flag has been burned, many of our citizens have been threatened and driven from their overseas homs by vicious mons chardon "death to america." these mobs which did the black banner of islamic extremism on the anniversary of 9/11. as the dust settles, as the murdered are buried, americans are asking how this happened. how the threats we face have grown worse, and what this calls on america to do. these are the right questions. i have come here today to offer a larger perspective on these tragic recent events, and to share with you, and to share with all americans, my vision for a freer, more prosperous, and more peaceful world. the attacks on america last

month should not be seen as random acts. they are expressions of a larger struggle that is playing out across the broader middle east, a region that is now and in the midst of the most profound upheaval in a century. the fault lines of this struggle can be seen clearly in benghazi itself. the attack on our consulate there on september 11, 2012, was likely the work of forces affiliated with those that attacked our homeland on september 11, 2001. this latest assault cannot be blamed on irrepressible video insulting islam. despite the administration's attempts to convince us of that for so long. no, as the administration has finally conceded, these attacks were the deliberate work of terrorists, who use violence to impose their dark ideology on others, especially women and girls, who are fighting to control much of the middle east today, and who seek to wage a perpetual war on the west.

we saw all of this in benghazi last month, but we also saw something else, something hopeful. after the attack on our consulate, tens of thousands of libyans, most of them young people, held a massive protest in benghazi against a very extremist who had murdered our people. they waved signs that read, "the ambassador was libya's friend," and "libya is sorry." they chanted "no to militias." they marched to the terrorist compound and then and they burned it to the ground. as one libyan woman said, " we're not going to go from darkness to darkness." this is a struggle that has shaken the entire middle east. it is the struggle of millions

and millions of people, men and women, young and old, muslims, christians, and nonbelievers, all of whom have had enough of the darkness. it is a struggle for the dignity that comes with freedom and opportunity and the right to live under laws of our own making. it is a struggle that has unfolded under green banners in the streets of iran, in the public squares of tunisia and egypt and yemen, and in the fight for liberty in iraq and afghanistan and libya, and now in syria. in short, it is a struggle between liberty and tyranny, justice and oppression, hope and despair. we have seen this struggle before. you will be familiar with the general george marshall. in his time, the ashes of world war, the struggle between democracy and despotism. fortunately, we had the leaders of courage and vision, both

republicans and democrats, who knew that america had to support friends who share our values and prevent today's crises from becoming tomorrow's conflicts trade statesmanlike marshall would rise to the responsibility, as did the leader of the free world. we defended our friends and ourselves from our common enemies. we led -- we led. although the path was long and uncertain, the thought of war in europe is inconceivable today as it seemed inevitable in the last century. this is what makes america exceptional. it is not only the character of our country. it is also the record of our accomplishments. america has a proud history of strong, confident, principled global leadership, a history that has been written by patriots of both parties. this is the standard by which we measure ever present, as well

as anyone who wishes to be president. unfortunately, this president's policies have not been equal to our best examples of world leadership, and nowhere is this more evident than in the middle east. i want to be very clear -- the blame for the murder of our people in libya and the attacks on our embassies in so many other countries lies solely with those who carried them out, no one else. it is our responsibility and responsibility of the president to use america's greatest power to shape history, not to lead from behind, leaving our destiny at the mercy of events. unfortunately, that is exactly what we find ourselves in the middle east under president obama. the relationship between the president of the united states and the prime minister of israel, for example, our close ally in the region, has suffered great strains. at the present explicitly stated that his goal was to put daylight between the united

states and israel, and he succeeded. and this is a dangerous situation that has set back the hope of peace in the middle east and embolden our mutual adversaries, especially iran. iran today has never been closer to a nuclear weapon capability. it has never posed a greater danger to our friends, our allies, and as, and has never acted less deterred by america as was made clear last year when iranian agents plotted to assassinate the saudi ambassador in our nation's capital. and yet 1 million iranians took to the streets in june 2009, demanding freedom from a cruel regime that threatens the world, when they cried out, "are you with us or are you with them," the american president was silent. across the greater middle east, as the joint board from the downfall of dictators has given way to the painstaking work of building capable security forces and growing economies and developing effective democratic institutions, the president has failed to offer the tangible support that our partners want and need.

in iraq, the costly gains made by our troops are being eroded by rising violence, a resurgent al qaeda, the weakening of democracy in baghdad, and the rising influence of iran. and yet america's ability to influence events for the better and iraq has been undermined by the abrupt withdrawal of our entire troop presence. the president has tried -- he tried, but he also failed, to secure a responsible and gradual drawdown that would have better secure our gains. the president has also failed to lead in syria, where more than 30,000 men, women, and children have been massacred by the assad regime over the past 20 months. violent extremists are flowing into the fight. our ally turkey has been attacked. the conflict threatens stability in the region. america can take pride in the blows that our military and intelligence professionals have inflicted on al qaeda, pakistan, afghanistan, including the

killing of osama bin laden. these are real achievements one at a high cost. al qaeda remains a strong force, however, in yemen and somalia, libya, other parts of north africa, iraq, and now in syria, and other extremists have been ground across the region. drones and modern instruments of war are important tools in our fight, but are no substitute for national security strategy for the middle east. the president is fond of saying that the tide of war is receding. i want to believe him as much as anyone else. but when we look at the middle east today, with iran closer than ever to nuclear weapons capability, with the conflict in syria threatening to destabilize the region, and with a violent extremists on the march, and with an american ambassador and three others dead, likely at the hands of al qaeda affiliates, it is clear that the risk of

conflict in the region is higher now than when the president took office. i know the president hopes for a safer, freer, and more prosperous middle east allied with us. i shared this hope. but hope is not a strategy. we cannot support our friends and defeat our enemies in the middle east when our words are not backed up by deeds, when our defense spending is arbitrarily and deeply cut, when we have no trade agenda to speak of, and the perception of our strategy is not one of partnership but passivity. the greater tragedy of it all is that we are missing an historic opportunity to win a new friends who share our values and the middle east, friends who are fighting for their own futures against the very same violent extremists and evil tyrant and angry mobs who seek to harm us. unfortunately, so many of these people who could be our friends feel that our president is indifferent to their quest for freedom and dignity. as one syrian woman put it, "we will not forget that you forgot

about us." it is time to change course in the middle east. that should be organized around these bedrock principles -- america must have confidence in our cause, clarity in our purpose, and resolve in our minds. no friend of america will question our commitment to support them. no enemy that attacks america will question our results to defeat them. no one anywhere, friend or foe, will doubt america's ability to back up our words. i will put the leaders of iran on notice that the united states and our friends and allies will prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons capability. i will not hesitate to impose new sanctions on iran, and will tighten the sanctions we currently have. i will restore the permanent presence of aircraft carriers

and task forces in both the eastern mediterranean and the gulf. and i will work with israel to increase our military assistance and coordination. for the sake of peace, we must make clear to iran for actions, not just words, that their nuclear pursuits will not be tolerated. i will reaffirm our historic ties to israel and our abiding commitment to its security. the world must never see any daylight between our two nations. i will deepen our critical cooperation with our partners in the gulf, and i will hold back president obama's deep and arbitrary cuts to our national defense that would devastate our military. i will make a critical defense investments that we need to remain secure. the decisions we make today will determine our ability to protect america tomorrow. the first purpose of a strong military is to prevent war. the size of our navy is at levels not seen since 1916. i will restore our navy to the size needed to fulfill our missions by building 15 ships per year, including three submarines. i will implement effective

missile defenses to protect against threats. and on this, there will be no flexibility with vladimir putin. i will call on our nato allies to keep the greatest military alliance in history strong by honoring their commitment to each devote 2% of their gdp to security spending. today, only three of the 28 nato nations meet this benchmark. i will make further reforms to foreign assistance, to create incentives for good governance, for free enterprise, and for greater trade in the middle east and beyond. i will organize all efforts in the greater middle east under one official, with responsibility and accountability to prioritize efforts and to produce results. i will rally our friends and our allies to match our generosity with their, and i will make it clear to the

recipients of our aid that in return for our material support, they must meet the responsibilities of every decent, modern government, to respect the rights of all the citizens, including women and minorities, to ensure civil society, a free media, political parties, and an independent judiciary, and to abide by international commitments to protect our diplomats and our property. i will champion of free trade and restore it as a critical element of our strategy, both in the middle east and across the world. the president has not signed one new free trade agreement in the past four years. i will reverse that failure and work with the nation's around the world that are committed to the principles of our free enterprise, expanding its existing relationships, and starting new ones. i will support friends in the middle east who share our values but need help defending them

and their sovereignty against common enemies. in libya, i will support the libyan people's efforts to forge a lasting government represents all of them, and i will vigorously pursue the terrorists who attacked our consulate in benghazi and killed our fellow americans. in egypt, i will use our influence, including clear conditions on our eight, to urge the new government to represent all egyptians, to build democratic institutions, and to maintain its peace treaty with israel. and we must persuade our friends and allies to place similar stipulations on their aid. in syria, i will work with our partners to identify and organize those members of the opposition who share our values, and then ensure that they obtained the arms they need to defeat assad's tanks and helicopters and fighter jets. iran is sending arms to assad because they know his downfall would be a strategic defeat for

them. we should be working no less vigorously through international partners to support the many syrians who would deliver that defeat to iran, rather than sitting on the sidelines. it is essential that we develop influence with those forces in syria that will one day lead a country that sits at the heart of the middle east. in afghanistan, i will pursue our real and successful transition to afghan security forces by the end of 2014. president obama what have you believe that anyone who disagrees with his decisions in afghanistan is arguing for endless war. but the route to war and potential attacks on is a politically it time to retreat that abandons the afghans to people, the same extremists who launched 9/11. i will evaluate conditions on the ground and with the best device of our military commanders, and i will affirm that my duty is not to protect my political prospects, but to protect the security of the

nation. finally, i will recommit america to the goal of a democratic, prosperous palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security with the jewish state of israel. on this vital issue, the president has failed. and what should be a negotiation process has devolved into a series of heated disputes at the un. in this old conflict, as in every challenge we face at the middle east, only a new president will bring the chance to begin anew. there is a long and for american leadership in the middle east, and it is not unique to that region. it is broadly felt by america's friends and allies and other parts of the world as well. in europe, where putin's russia casts a long shadow over young democracies, where our oldest allies say we're giving away from them. in asia and across the pacific, where china posture recent

assertiveness is sending chills through of that region. and in our own hemisphere, where our neighbors in latin america want to resist the failed ideology of hugo chavez and the castro brothers and deepen ties with the united states through trade and energy insecurity. in all these places, just as in the middle east, the question is asked, where does america stand? i know many americans are asking a different question -- why us? i know many americans are asking whether our country today, with our ailing economy and massive debt and 11 years of war, is still capable of leading. i believe that if america doesn't lead, others will. others who don't share our interests and our values, and the world would grow darker for our friends and for us. america's security and the cause of freedom cannot afford four more years like the last four years. i believe america has the duty to our citizens and friends everywhere to use our influence wisely, with solemnity, and

without false pride, but also firmly and actively, to shape events in ways that secure our interests, for our values, prevent conflict, and make the world better -- not perfect, but better. our friends and allies across the globe to not want less american leadership. they want more. more of our moral support, more of our security cooperation, more of our trade, more of our assistance in building free societies and thriving economies. so many people across the world still look to america as the best hope of humankind. so many people still have faith in america. we must show them that we still have faith in ourselves, that we have the will on the wisdom to revive our stagnant economy,

to roll back our unsustainable debt, to reform our government, to reverse the catastrophic cuts now threatening our national defense, to renew the sources of our great power and to lead the course of human events. sir winston churchill once said of george marshall, "he always fought victoriously against defeatism, the discouragement, and dissolution." that is the role our friends want us to play again, and the role we must play. the 21st century can and must be an american century. it began with terror and war and economic calamity. it is our duty to steer it under the path of freedom and peace and prosperity. the torch america carries is one of decency and hope. it is not america's torch alone, but it is america's duty and honor to hold it high enough

that all the world can see it's like. thank you so much for your participation in this great charge. god bless you, and god bless the united states of america. thank you very much. [applause] ♪ ♪

♪

>> the obama campaign released a ad earlier today.

the visits to the united kingdom. >> i am barack obama and i approve this message. >> reckless, amateurish, that is what they called mitt romney's july tour of israel and poland when our diplomats were attacked in libya. it showed an extraordinary lack of presidential character. this is now be cancelled debts the world free of the saudi camp -- canales the world now, imagine if he was president. >> a debate between the canons of the u.s. senate and in montana. montana.